Chapter 2

Classifying Life

Classification systems are used to help us organize and study living things.

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass,
the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that
yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in
itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth
brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed
according to its kind, and the tree that yields
fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind.
And God saw that it was good.

—Genesis 1:11–12

What You Will Learn

There are many different ways to group living things depending on the presuppositions that you start with.

Classification systems are used to help us organize and study
living things. There are many different ways to group living things
depending on the presuppositions that you start with. Evolutionists
believe that all living things descended from a single common
ancestor. Because they have this presupposition, they use the differences
in physical traits, DNA, and protein sequences to determine
relationships among different kinds of animals and plants. This
assumption of a common ancestor has forced evolutionists to reorganize
many of the original classifications of animals. Dinosaurs
are now believed to be the ancestors of birds. Some have even suggested
reclassifying birds as reptiles since the molecular evidence
is interpreted to support this claim. The classification of the apes,
among which evolutionists include humans, has changed to reflect
the evolutionary view that humans are just intelligent apes. Some
have even gone so far as to suggest that chimpanzees be included in
the human genus Homo.

The Bible tells us that man was created in the image of God,
and therefore man should not be classified as an ape. Creationists,
starting from the truth found in the Bible, classify living things into
distinct “kinds” and recognize the amazing genetic variety found
within each kind. The field of baraminology involves studying the
classification of living things through the biblical concept of the
created kinds. The molecular evidence of proteins and DNA can
be used to understand relationships within the created kinds, but
it can’t be used to understand how one kind changed into another,
because that type of change has never occurred. Evolutionists will
not arrive at an accurate understanding of the relationships of
living things because their starting assumptions do not reflect the
absolute truth available in God’s Word.

What Your Textbook Says about Classifying Life

Evolutionary Concept

Glencoe

PH-Campbell

PH-Miller

Holt

Articles

Linnaeus develops a
system for classification.

444

341

448–449

300

2:1

Classification is based on
evolutionary relationships
and physical traits.

Homologous and
analogous structures
are used to determine
evolutionary relationships.

444

—

384, T453

305,
594

3:6,
3:7,
3:29

Dinosaurs are the
ancestors of modern birds.
Birds are actually closely
related to alligators.

445,
452–453

345–348, T346,
T558, T561,
564, 568

432, 799,
807, T807

307–
309,
727,
T787

2:5,
2:6,
2:7,
3:35

All life on earth came from
a single common ancestor.

454–455

—

382, T382–
T383,
T385, 410,
T418, 457,
460–461

413

3:6,
3:7,
3:8,
3:13,
3:19

Evolutionary relationships
can be determined by
comparing DNA and
amino acid sequences.
Evolutionary time can be
measured with molecular
clocks.

462

T303, 341, 343,
T343–T344

451, 454,
T454, 455,
T455

220,
232,
413,
602,
737

2:8,
3:6,
3:29

Note: Page numbers preceded by “T” indicate items from the teacher notes found
in the margins of the Teacher’s Edition.

What We Really Know about Classifying Life

Genesis records that God created the animals and plants according
to their kind. Genesis explains that God created specific kinds
of animals. These kinds were able to breed and reproduce more of
the same kind with a great variety of traits. It is not absolutely clear
what the boundaries of the original kinds were, but it is clear from
Genesis that the different animals and plants did not evolve from
one another. The creation of life on earth was certainly a miraculous
event that man will never be able to fully understand—it must be
accepted by faith. However, it requires just as much—if not more—
faith to accept the evolutionary story of the beginning of life and the
first cell from lifeless matter.

The current system of classification is based on the pioneering
work of the creation scientist Carolus Linnaeus. Linnaeus developed
a classification system that was based on physical characteristics. Linnaeus
is credited with popularizing the use of hierarchies and binomial
nomenclature—the two-name system used for names in science
today. Linnaeus called man Homo diurnis (man of the day) and
grouped him in the primate group based on physical traits. Today,
humans are called Homo sapiens (wise man). Classifying humans
based on physical traits alone does not reflect the biblical idea of
being created in the image of God. While it is true that humans
share the physical traits attributed to mammals, humans have a spirit
that distinguishes them from animals. Despite the fact that we share
many traits with the primates, humans are not simply highly evolved
apes; we were specially created in the image of God.

Linnaeus based his work on natural theology, the idea that God
had created order in the universe and man could understand that
Divine Order by studying the creation. He wrote in a preface to Systema
Naturae, “The Earth’s creation is the glory of God, as seen from
the works of Nature by Man alone.” Linnaeus believed in “fixity of
species” (the idea that organisms do not change over time) early in
his life, but his plant-breeding experiments showed that hybrids were
evidence against the idea that species have remained the same since
they were created. Linnaeus found that hybridization could happen
above the species level and that organisms in nature were in a state of
competition. He explained this as the struggle for nature to maintain
the balance that God had instilled in it at creation. New organisms
that arose were all derived from the primae speciei (original kinds)
and were a part of God’s original plan because He placed the potential
for variation in the original creation.
Modern biblical creationists still use the concept

Creationists recognize certain
created kinds that have been
present since they were created.
Creationists and evolutionists
agree that all of the varieties of
dogs on earth have a common
ancestor—when that ancestor
existed is different in the two
explanations. This mule is
produced by breeding a horse
with a donkey—evidence that
horses and donkeys are of the
same created kind.

Modern biblical creationists still use the concept of the created kind
as a basis for classification and the limit of variation. A group of creation
scientists called the Biology Study Group is currently attempting to
classify animals within created kinds, or baramins (from the Hebrew
bara—create and min—kind), based on several criteria, including
genetic information and breeding studies. The created kinds roughly
correspond to the current classification at the family level. However,
some kinds may extend up to the order or down to the genus level,
since the current system of classification does not take the idea of
special creation into account. Any organisms that can interbreed are
considered part of the same kind, but those that can’t may or may
not be. Further research is needed to understand which organisms,
both living and extinct, belong to each created kind.

Created Kind (Baramin): the original organisms (and their descendants)
created supernaturally by God as described in Genesis 1; these
organisms reproduce only their own kind within the limits of preprogrammed
information, but with great variation.

Note: Since the original creation, organisms of one kind presumably
cannot interbreed with a different kind, but individuals
within a kind may have lost the ability (information) to interbreed
due to the effects of the Curse.

Classification systems today are still based on physical characteristics,
but the natural order is no longer accepted as coming
from God. Evidence of design in the natural world is ignored. Secular
scientists repeat the mantra that the apparent design is just
an accident and that matter and energy are all that can be used
to describe how the universe works. Evolutionary relationships are
used to reorganize moden classification systems based on the belief
that all organisms have a common ancestor.

Phylogeny is the study of the evolutionary relationships
between all living organisms. Taxonomists, scientists who classify
living things, use different types of diagrams to display the supposed
relationships. These diagrams show how organisms are supposed
to have descended from a single ancestor. The diagrams come
in several forms. The fan diagrams show the organisms with respect
to their common ancestors and the relative size of the groups. Phylogenetic
trees and cladograms are very similar in that they show
evolutionary relationships based on various characteristics. There
is much debate in taxonomy about what traits to include when
doing the analysis. Different relationships come to light depending
on which characteristics are given the most weight in the system
of classification. Evolutionists assume that they can construct the
complete “tree of life” by including as many traits as possible. Evidence
from DNA, anatomy, development, and fossils are commonly
used in the construction of these systems.

A major problem with phylogenetic trees and other related
models is the lack of evidence that supports the links between
known organisms and their supposed fossil relatives. The lines that
connect an ancestor to the living organism are mostly imaginary.
Very little fossil evidence supports the lines on the diagrams that
connect the different kinds of organisms over millions of years, but
the lines are often presented as fact. Darwin expected the fossils to
show a progression of form, from fish to amphibian, for example,
but that progression is missing. The term “missing link” is often
used to refer to these gaps and the missing fossils that supposedly
fill them. Whenever you see one of these trees, ask, “What direct
evidence supports the lines on the tree?” In some cases there are
examples of fossils that fit in the sequence, but the vast majority
are missing the evidence. The reliability of such a model is called
into question when it is based on so many assumptions. The fossil
record is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.

Creationists disagree with the idea of a “tree of life” as evolutionists
see it—all life originating from a single, unknown, common
ancestor. If we consider the created kinds from Genesis, the picture
of life would look more like an orchard—distinct groups of
animals showing variety within a kind. The trees in this orchard
do not overlap one another or cross one another, representing the
limits of variety within the DNA of the created kinds. This view
(developed by Dr. Kurt Wise) is confirmed by the evidence from
operational science.

While new species have been observed to arise, it is always
within the limits of the created kinds. The study of this variability
and the relationships of animals within the original created kinds is
called baraminology. This approach to classifying life is fundamentally
opposed to the tree of life. This does not mean that creationists
reject the majority of classifications by evolutionary biologists
but that the evolutionary history associated with the classifications
is rejected. More research is needed in the field of baraminology to
understand the relationships within the created kinds. This field of
research can make specific predictions about the relationships of
organisms based on breeding experiments and improve the current
understanding of God’s divine order.

Evolutionists use the idea of “molecular clocks” to determine the
amount of time that has elapsed since an alleged ancestor split into
two groups. This evidence is used to suggest that humans and chimpanzees
came from a common ancestor that lived sometime between
4 and 8 million years ago. The operational science behind molecular
clocks is based on differences in the DNA sequence or the sequence
of amino acids in proteins. The tricky part is interpreting the time
involved in these supposed changes. The model of molecular clocks
assumes that evolution has happened. Yet, the idea of a Designer
who used similar plans to create similar organisms and molecules is
just as reasonable an explanation from a scientific perspective.

The belief that all of these animals share a common ancestor is based on the
assumption that evolution can create new information. The use of DNA and
fossils to construct classification schemes has misled people to accept the idea
that birds are actually closely related to crocodiles. The Bible describes these
two as being created on separate days—not close relatives.

Another popular belief is that birds are actually living dinosaurs.
Some prominent scientists refuse to accept the idea, but
many still find the mystique of watching a dinosaur eating from
a feeder in the backyard intriguing. This idea is prominent in the
textbooks and media, even though no theory seems to fit the scenario
accurately. Whether or not a mechanism for evolving birds
from some small theropod dinosaur can be devised, many scientists
are sure that it must have happened. It seems that almost all of the
new dinosaur fossils are shown by artists to have feathers. Even
though there was no clear evidence to support the feathered interpretation,
the feathers are added to convince the public that science
has found these things to be true. The next time you hear of one
of these feathered fossils, ask to see the feather imprints—like the
ones preserved so well in the fossilized bird Archaeopteryx.

Ultimately, all classification schemes and theoretical relationships
are based on man’s interpretation of the evidence. Starting with the
truth found in God’s Word will lead us closer to the true interpretation
of the evidence than starting with the fallible ideas of men.

Reference Articles

2:1 Carolus Linnaeus, Morris, Men of Science, Men of God

Rather than a tree of
life that began with
a single common
ancestor, creationists
believe life started with
a certain number of
created kinds. All life
on earth is a result of
the genetic variety in
the originally created
kinds. As a result, the
creationist picture of
life would look more
like an orchard with
many trees, each
representing a created
kind.

The modern system of classification is known as the Linnaean
system and is based on the work of the creation scientist
Carolus Linnaeus. Linnaeus was actually trying to identify
the original kinds from Genesis in his research. Linnaeus
related the Genesis kind to his category of species and therefore
believed in the “fixity of species.” Linnaeus recognized
that variation happens within the created kinds, not between
kinds. Evolutionists often make the false claim that creationists
believed, and still believe, that species don’t change.

Evolutionists often claim that the acceptance of creation
is a “science stopper” and that the actions of God cut off the
possibility for studying scientific concepts. This idea, however,
is false. A belief in special creation only removes the
option of continuous evolution, not the study of the many
other relationships among living things. The study of cichlid
fish by Dr. Jones showed the amazing variety of characteristics
within the cichlid species, including coloration and ability
to survive in saltwater. What was also apparent was that
the cichlids were a distinct kind of fish that showed no evolutionary
relationships in the breeding experiments. The fossil
record supports the notion of fixed kinds of fish, with very
few supposed transitional forms between kinds of fish. Creationists
are not bound to any classification system that rises
above the level of kind. Parts of the classification schemes
may be correct as they appear today, but more research needs
to be done to clarify the relationships.

Charts and diagrams can be wonderful aids in giving
clarity and visual reinforcement to a point or lesson one is
trying to make. However, these explanatory tools can also
be confusing, and in some cases misleading, when the illustrations
and their implications are not fully explained. Such
is the case with charts that supposedly show the evolutionary
relationship of creatures. A typical illustration, such as
the one showing insect ancestry, will try to convince you of
how a certain group of creatures has evolved from a common
ancestor in the past. However, these charts almost
always use dotted lines when the supposed evolutionary
path is unknown. In these instances, you should simply
ignore the dotted lines. By doing so, you will usually be
left with a diagram showing that the different types of species
depicted have remained basically the same throughout
history. Without the dotted lines, these charts simply show
the diversity within a kind, revealing that today’s creatures
haven’t really changed from so-called “ancient” ancestors.
The dotted lines reinforce the fact that there is no evidence
to prove the existence of a common ancestor. Go to your
local library and check all the evolutionary trees you can
find. You’ll find this a revealing and worthwhile exercise.

When constructing the
evolutionary history of
life, scientists must make
many assumptions.
This diagram points
out some of those
assumptions. The lines
represent inferences
that many scientists
disagree with. The
dashed lines represent
the "best guess" at the
relationships or places
where the evidence is
contradictory. There are
no clear links between
the fossils shown when
the dashed lines are
removed.

The next time you see a phylogenetic tree (“tree of life”)
in a textbook or magazine article, take a look at the fine
print. Honest diagrams will make a distinction between the
actual evidence and the interpreted information by using
shading or dashed and solid lines. In the picture shown on
the next page, the lighter lines indicate solid fossil evidence
and the darker lines and branching points represent interpretations.
So, the real evidence shows stasis, not change.
Dinosaurs were dinosaurs and did not change into something
else or from something else. The links between kinds
are simply stories about the evidence. The evidence does
not prove evolution, as is often suggested.

The lighter lines represent actual fossil evidence. The darker lines represent
assumptions about relationships. When the assumptions are removed, the
evidence fits the creationist orchard model much better.

A fossil discovered in 1999 was one of many claimed by
a number of scientists and promoted by the media, especially
National Geographic, to be a feathered dinosaur. The fossil
was from a region in China that has been producing many
new fossil forms and changing many ideas surrounding
the evolutionary history of secular scientists. The fossil was
named Archaeoraptor and included a bird’s upper body structure
with fossilized feather imprints but the tail of a theropod
dinosaur. The fossil was promoted as proof positive that
birds had evolved from dinosaurs. The National Geographic
article that accompanied the release of the fossil had a model
of T. rex covered in feathers. This prompted the curator of
birds at the Smithsonian Institute to proclaim:

With the publication of “Feathers for T. rex?” by
Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National
Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in
sensationalistic, unsubstantiated tabloid journalism.

Upon further examination by various experts, it was
determined that the fossil was actually a fraud. The apparent
difference in the body and tail were actually different—
from two different organisms. Despite the fact that this and
other “feathered dinosaurs” have been shown to be fakes or
misinterpretations, the media and many scientists are still
claiming feathers should be shown on fossils that show no
evidence of feathers.

The idea of dinosaurs evolving into birds has been
around since 1868 when it was first proposed by Thomas
Huxley. Since Huxley, the hypothesis has undergone major
shifts. Even after 130 years of new evidence, the interpretation
is still contested. The presence of two new fossil species,
Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx, has shed little light
on the topic. Depending on the bias of the interpreter,
these two are either flightless birds or feathered theropod
dinosaurs. The presence of short, fibrous structures on a
Sinosauropteryx fossil is often interpreted as “protofeathers”
despite the fact that the existence and structure of these
ancestral feathers are completely hypothetical.

In another problematic find, the fossil Protoavis is
considered to be more similar to modern birds than
Archaeopteryx but is 75 million years older. This causes
significant problems for the theropod theory because the
common ancestor would need to be much older than the
earliest known dinosaur Eoraptor. The plastic nature of the
evolutionary theory makes it certain that something else will
be put in the role of bird ancestor if the dinosaurs don’t fit.

The development of the bird lung is another major issue
because no suitable ancestor exists from which the lungs
could have developed. Another major question is whether
birds evolved from the ground up (cursorial) or down from
the trees (arboreal). Many hypotheses have been suggested,
but there seems to be no solid evidence for one side or the
other. The evolution of birds is an area where scientists have
found little to agree on. The special creation of birds and their
subsequent variation explain the evidence much better.

Although no feathered dinosaurs
have ever been found, many
evolutionists believe that birds
are living members of a line that
began with a dinosaurian ancestor.
Archaeopteryx is simply an extinct
perching bird, not a missing link
in the evolution story. Birds and
dinosaurs first appear fully formed
in the fossil record with no evidence
that one evolved into another.

The many differences in the development of feathers and scales makes it
clear that scales could not have been remodeled to form a feather. Feathers
and hair are much more closely related in development.

The old paradigm of
bird evolution is admittedly
flawed, according to writers
of an article in Scientific
American. The authors
admit that evolution does
not provide a valid mechanism
for creating the amazingly
strong, yet lightweight,
structures found in birds but
not in their close dinosaur
cousins. Archaeopteryx is
discounted as shedding no
light on the subject since its
feathers look just like modern
feathers. There is no
fossil evidence of the transition
from simple reptilian
scales to complex feathers
with their many interlocking
parts. Evolution cannot
explain why feathers would
have developed from scales
for flight and then developed
a new developmental
pathway to form them. To
explain this, the authors
suggest that feathers evolved
before theropod dinosaurs or birds. There is no fossil evidence
to support this claim, and the possible reasons for the
development of feathers includes camouflage, insulation,
protection, and other hypotheses that are not supported by
the fossil evidence.

Challenging evolution is not an option, so the evidence
just gets reevaluated. The new mode of interpretation is
called evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo”
for short. According to evo-devo, “the complex mechanisms
by which an individual organism grows to its full size and
form can provide a window into the evolution of a species’
anatomy.” In other words, by looking at the stages of feather
development in a bird today, we can look for “ancient”
dinosaur feathers at the early stages of development. The
new concept is based on many assumptions that limit its
scientific validity, but it has become popular nonetheless.
Challenges to the idea of dino-to-bird evolution continue
to plague the proposal, and leading evolutionary biologists
cannot even agree on the big picture, let alone the details.

Evolutionary scientists believe that all humans on the
earth originated from a small group in Africa over 200,000
years ago. This group included “mitochondrial Eve.”
Researchers of human origins believe that the ancestry of
humans can be traced by analyzing mutations of the DNA
contained in the mitochondria of every cell. This mitochondrial
DNA (mtDNA) is assumed to be transferred
only from mother to offspring in the egg cell. The mitochondria
in the sperm do not enter the egg, so they don’t
become a part of the offspring’s cells.

Assuming that the mtDNA sequence of two females
should be more similar the farther back in time you go,
researchers calculated how long ago the different people
groups separated from each other. The African group had
more differences from the other groups, so it is assumed that
they have had more time to accumulate the mutations. The
date was also calibrated by using the assumed divergence of
chimps and humans to calculate the rate of mutation.

The mitochondrial Eve idea is only valid if humans
receive mtDNA only from the mother and if the rate of
mutation is constant and known. Since none of these
assumptions are known, the dating method may be invalid.
Since recent research indicates that there is mixing of
paternal and maternal mtDNA, no conclusion about the
rate or origin is reliable—mitochondrial Eve appears to be
dead.

The idea that mutation rates are constant and can
be used as a “molecular clock” has also been called into
question. The dates arrived at by molecular analysis are
much older than the dates given when paleontologists
interpret the fossil evidence. Many studies have shown that
there are different rates of mutation in different populations
and in different sections of the mtDNA. This makes the
dating very speculative.

Questions to Consider

Do the relationships shown in the phylogenetic trees ever change?

Since using different characteristics gives different phylogenetic
trees, how can you know which tree is right?

Can any one classification scheme (phylogenetic tree) be called
right or wrong if it is simply an interpretation of the same evidence
as other classification schemes?

Why do many artists draw feathers on dinosaurs when there is no
evidence of actual feathers found with the fossils?

Do scientists agree on how dinosaurs turned into birds?

Does the fact that a majority of scientists think that dinosaurs
evolved into birds make it true? What about those scientists who
laugh at this idea?

Since different sections of mitochondrial DNA mutate at different
rates, how do scientists decide which rate to use when determining
evolutionary dates?

Evolution Exposed: Biology

This book helps teens to discern the chronic bias towards belief in evolution that permeates today’s three most popular high school biology textbooks. Virtually every chapter in each of the secular textbooks contains implied or explicit references to evolutionary beliefs, which are misrepresented as irrefutable facts. However, in Evolution Exposed: Biology these misrepresentations are cross-referenced with online articles and publications that provide both scientific and biblical answers. Key terms are defined, articles are summarized and false ideas are refuted.

Newsletter

Thank You!

Thank you for signing up to receive email newsletters from Answers in Genesis.

Whoops!

Your newsletter signup did not work out. Please refresh the page and try again.

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth.